Does the FAA Part 107 test need to be updated?

[The Droning Company]

Does the FAA Part 107 Test need to be updated?

 

[Fat Pappy]

No, but you have to take & pass the easy on-line training every 2 years to stay/get current.

 

[JTorsrud]

No, but you have to take & pass the easy on-line training every 2 years to stay/get current.

Also, because its on the FAA Safety Website, it should be current and it's free!

 

[Vic Moss]

No, but you have to take & pass the easy on-line training every 2 years to stay/get current.

Did you read the article?

 

[Fat Pappy]

Did you read the article?

I don’t have a link to an article.

 

[Vic Moss]

I don’t have a link to an article.

It's on the link in the original post.

 

[AlanL]

Good read - I can plead guilty as charged for not having even looked at METARs or TAFs since I studied for my exam. It would be good to include more details for pilots who only fly multi rotor aircraft.

 

[CadrePilot]

I have a hard time taking the linked article seriously, as the first contributor, Jon McBride, writes about "commercial operation" and discusses paid work as well as flights that benefit a business, while making no reference to recreational versus non-recreational flights.

 

[Fat Pappy]

It's on the link in the original post.

Thanks for pointing that out. I have now read it. The first guy has a rather stilted view on what are commercial ops. He may be quoting some FAA reg. However, when I asked my FSDO if taking a video for my church’s web site or simply using my personal drone to inspect the roof of my personal RV needed a 107 ticket, I was told that both operations would require it. So, I got my 107 ticket. As a private pilot, it was not that big of a deal.

As far as the 107 test material goes, I agree with many that there are items that are irrelevant for drone ops - things like airport markings, fixed wing aerodynamics, METARs, TAF, sectional charts etc.

General weather knowledge and its impact on drone ops is useful as would be a working knowledge of drone aerodynamics. Knowing what websites to use to find drone-related airspace restrictions and approval mechanisms is far more useful than knowing how to read a METAR. Also, a basic understanding of the various classes of airspace should be required, but questions related to airspace should focus on apps that drone pilots use for exactly that purpose. Understanding where to find NOTAMs and TFRs and how to read them is fair game for 107 testing.

Requiring all drones to have ADS-B in and all manned flights to have ADS-B in & out would help in keeping all flights separated. My Mavic Air 2, which is a bit dated has ADS-B in, so it’s not a technological challenge. Also, making collision strobes required for all flights could help drone operators keep track of their drone and help manned flights to see drones. These would be the same strobes you need for night ops anyway. Requiring them will result in their inclusion in drones from the manufacturer.

In the manned flight ops, I see a defined distinction between private pilot ops and commercial ops. That distinction pretty much has $ signs attached to it along with passengers, freight or instructors. Why do drone pilots using drone footage on YouTube videos require a commercial (107) license, but private pilots who put flight video on their YouTube channel are ok?

I would be in favor of redesigning the 107 test. I would couple that with a better definition of what requires a commercial ticket. This would require a 107 ticket for commercial business operations, but would not require it for charitable ops or personal ops that are not purely for pleasure. I should be able to inspect my RV’s roof or shoot my church for free without needing a 107 ticket. Heck, if my neighbor at a campsite asks if I can shoot a video of his roof as a favor while I am already flying, that should not require a 107 ticket - unless I charge him for the service. The FAA needs to take a real world look at the 107 requirements. Wishful thinking, I know.

 

[Starz]

using my personal drone to inspect the roof of my personal RV needed a 107 ticket

Please forgive my laziness. I find this one difficult to believe. Would you point out where I would find some form of confirmation for this?

 

[Fat Pappy]

Please forgive my laziness. I find this one difficult to believe. Would you point out where I would find some form of confirmation for this?

You won’t. As I noted it as from a call with the FSDO. I asked and they answered on a phone call. They noted if it’s not purely recreational, it needs a 107. Given that it takes roughly 10-15 minutes to shoot a roof in video and stills, they opined that such an endeavor was not recreational.

ETA: Not having a clear definition of commercial flights allows the FAA to pretty much make it up as they go. You also may not get consistent guidance.

 

[CadrePilot]

Please forgive my laziness. I find this one difficult to believe. Would you point out where I would find some form of confirmation for this?

Your incredulity is understandable.

However, it's easy to understand. The code has a narrow exception for recreational use only. (period)
If the flight is not recreational, you need 107 (there are other minor exceptions).
The matter has been confused by past information referencing "commercial use" and "furtherance of business".